Newsmaker: Could haves, should haves and the Jarvis bike lanes

One ﬁnal effort to save the Jarvis Street bicycle lanes from removal was kiboshed after city council voted on Tuesday to move ahead of the lanes’ eradication. Many are left bitter. Those in the “Save Jarvis” camp, including city councillors, cycling activists and private citizens, put up a valiant ﬁght to rescue the bike lanes from a city administration that deemed them a hindrance to tra∞c. But do they regret not doing more? The following stakeholders address some of their e≠orts and weigh in on what, if anything, could — or should — have been done differently.

Jared KolbDirector of Campaigns and Membership at cycling advocacy group Cycle TorontoDid “I believe we’ve done everything we could,” Kolb says, noting that Cycle Toronto has organized public protests, done extensive political lobbying and even appealed to the provincial government to intervene. (They were denied).
“In the end, it came down to three votes [from councillors] we thought we had on our side, and we’re still scratching our heads.”

Should’ve done “If anything, we could have gotten more of these councillors out on bikes, to experience first-hand what it means.”

Kristyn Wong-TamCouncillor for Ward 27, which is home to the bike lanes in questionDid Resentful of what she perceives to be a jettisoning of Jarvis Street’s potential, Wong-Tam says her constituents’ desire to keep the bike lanes — and the report she presented to council after holding a public consultation on the street’s future — were ignored.

Should’ve done Wong-Tam wouldn’t indulge this, stating, “There are those on council who are so deeply committed to a political ideology, they won’t listen to sound urban planning … my [ward] got caught in the political wind of the Ford administration.”

Michael McClellandPrincipal architect at ERA Architects Inc.Did Though his company hasn’t been directly involved in the bike lane fight, in 2001 they partnered with the City on a report called “The Waterfront Culture and Heritage Infrastructure Plan.” It identifies Jarvis Street as one of Toronto’s key “cultural corridors,” worthy of upgrading and investment.

“We thought Jarvis needed to be understood as more than just a traffic corridor … this decision [to kill the lanes] is a step backwards. It’s to think of Jarvis again as a kind of highway.”

Should’ve done McClelland says that earlier on those advocating for the lanes should have initiated a clearer, “more holistic” public discussion of how bicycle infrastructure could fit into a broader revitalization of Jarvis. “[Instead] it’s just turned into a kind of a blood sport at City Hall.”